Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP): What It Is, What It Isn’t, and Why It Matters

Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP) is one of the most useful — and most misunderstood — metrics in endurance sport.

It is often discussed alongside FTP, VO₂max, and ramp testing, yet it represents a distinct concept with its own strengths and limitations. When understood correctly, MAP provides valuable insight into an athlete’s aerobic capacity and how that capacity can be developed through training. When misunderstood, it is frequently over-interpreted or misapplied.

This article explains what MAP actually represents, how it differs from other common metrics, and how it should be used in practice.

What MAP actually represents

Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP) refers to the highest power output an athlete can achieve while relying predominantly on aerobic energy provision.

In simple terms, it is the power expression of an athlete’s aerobic ceiling.

MAP does not describe how long a power can be sustained. Instead, it reflects the upper limit of aerobic energy delivery and utilisation at the point where aerobic metabolism is maximally stressed.

This distinction is important. MAP is a measure of capacity, not endurance.

MAP is not VO₂max (but they are closely related)

MAP and VO₂max are strongly related, but they are not the same thing.

VO₂max describes the maximum rate at which oxygen can be consumed.
MAP describes the mechanical power output achieved at or near that aerobic maximum.

Two athletes with similar VO₂max values can have different MAPs due to differences in efficiency, biomechanics, and power production characteristics. MAP therefore provides a practical, performance-relevant expression of aerobic capacity that VO₂max alone cannot.

MAP and FTP occupy different roles

MAP and FTP are often conflated, but they represent different regions of the performance spectrum.

MAP reflects the upper ceiling of aerobic power.
FTP reflects the highest sustainable fraction of that ceiling.

MAP answers the question:

“How high can aerobic power be driven?”

FTP answers the question:

“How much of that power can be sustained for a prolonged period?”

Both are important. Neither replaces the other.

How MAP is typically measured

MAP is most commonly estimated using incremental exercise tests, either in laboratory settings or in the field.

In practical cycling contexts, ramp tests are widely used as a convenient proxy for MAP estimation. These tests progressively increase power until voluntary exhaustion, allowing maximal aerobic stress to be reached within a relatively short timeframe.

While protocols vary, the underlying principle remains the same: MAP reflects the highest aerobic power achieved during an incremental progression.

Interpretation, however, depends on understanding what incremental tests do — and do not — reveal.

What MAP is genuinely useful for

When used appropriately, MAP is an extremely valuable metric.

It is particularly useful for:

Tracking changes in aerobic capacity over time
Anchoring upper training intensity zones
Assessing responses to aerobic-focused training blocks
Identifying broad athlete phenotype tendencies
Comparing within-athlete development across seasons

MAP excels as a development and monitoring tool, especially when assessed repeatedly under consistent conditions.

Common misunderstandings about MAP

Several misconceptions arise frequently:

A high MAP does not automatically imply strong endurance performance
MAP is not a race predictor on its own
MAP does not define FTP
MAP values should not be compared between athletes without context

MAP describes potential, not outcome. How that potential is expressed depends on many other factors, including durability, efficiency, and fatigue resistance.

MAP and ramp testing

MAP is most commonly estimated using ramp tests, but ramp test outcomes must be interpreted carefully.

Ramp tests are effective at driving athletes to maximal aerobic stress, but they do not distinguish cleanly between aerobic and non-aerobic contributions near test termination. As a result, identical ramp-derived MAP values can correspond to different sustainable performance profiles.

A detailed explanation of how ramp tests should be interpreted — and where their limitations lie — is available on the dedicated ramp test reference page.